AuthorTopic: Should I try for the top 3? (Read 4801 times)

Well, LSN only gives 22 rejections of people with 170+/3.8+ that's not really a lot I think. Speculating on what got them rejected is very hypothetical, I could imagine they are trying to balance the type of undergrad degrees people come in with, so if there's too many English Lits with 3.95 they ding someone with good numbers etc. Anyway, I'm not the one that mentioned yield protection anyway My only opinion is that no 'normal' soft factors will get you into Stanford if you're lacking in either LSAT or UGPA, and based on LSN numbers there's really not a single acceptance that counter-proves that theory in my opinion. The sub-170s all have very good UGPAs, and the acceptances with a UGPA below 3.75 generally have very good LSATs, and most of them are also URMs.

I dont know, I guess I'm just seeing the numbers different than you are, but I can't really find a single profile (perhaps except "cutepug") that looks like a "normal ding" that has been accepted for somewhat unknown reasons.

Well, I agree with that point-- no "normal" soft factors are going to overcome low numbers. A small, top-ranked school like Stanford (or Yale) can be selective enough that soft factors have be very strong to stand out from the crowd, especially if your numbers are weak. However, I think that Stanford does use soft factors to differentiate between applicants, and not just at the 178+/3.9+ level.

Also, I think that stuff like undergraduate majors, etc., ARE soft factors. If Stanford rejected those 22 people because of their major or lack of work experience or because they didn't fit certain niches within the overall class profile, then I think that's "soft" rather than "hard" factors.

Edit: Sorry, I know that I'm belaboring the point here, but I guess a small part of me is clinging to the idea that I got accepted based on more than just my numbers.

Maybe you did, but others certainly didn't. I think at your numbers level, Stanford is just looking for knockout factors, which are a little more open than usual: no WE, mediocre PS, an unimpressive LOR would all probably do it.

At 179, 3.95 I'd say your numbers pretty much save them the work of reading the rest of your application Of course, that's not entirely true, seeing that they dinged the chick with the weird nick with 180/4.0, they obviously do care about non-number stuff too. I don't really consider your major a soft factor, soft factors to me are more things that aren't related to your education at all, which would perhaps explain our difference of opinions.

Either way though. Why do you care why(/i] they admitted you? Any reason is a good reason in my book.

Mike, It is telling, but it is not about soft factors. What that is really about is yield protection (yes, even at Stanford). Stanford does not take many people from Yale and Harvard (probably do more for California and West Coast students). Every year, a substantial amount of their class is taken from the waitlist. Waitlisting these people keeps their yield down so they only accept people that might actually take them over Harvard or Yale. Again, its a numbers game and having a low acceptance rate helps as far as rankings.

Hmmm...I don't know about that. At the Stanford ASW, I counted at least as many students from Harvard and Yale (each) as from Stanford--probably in the range of about 30 or so from the two schools alone. Harvard, Yale, Penn, Princeton, Columbia, MIT and U Chicago are all huge feeders into Stanford's acceptance pool. Moreover, a lot of them get accepted and still go elsewhere, so I don't think it's necessarily yield protection.

He was talking about cross admits, not undergrad schools. I don't think it's inaccurate to suggest that Stanford gets rejected in favor of H and Y very frequently. Despite top 3, the reputation is just not the same; and the mobility of a t3 degree means even if you want to end up in Palo Alto after you graduate, you can still easily get there from Harvard or Yale. Like someone else mentioned, outside of California people, I don't think there are many who choose Stanford.

Goalie, How is that a dumb argument? It isn't a really big secret. Look at this board and see how many people that are cross admits at all three schools are actually GOING to Stanford instead of the other two. I'm not in any way implying that Stanford is somehow worse than those two but they lose the cross admit battle every year (look at LSN). They also have much more waitlist movement then those two every year. Again, they are a great school, but they definately yield protect to preserve a lower acceptance rate. This is by no means uncommon. Look at Penn for another example of a highly regarded law school who does a ton of this. Maybe if you think it is a dumb argument, you should provide some information countering it. If it is actually that dumb, I'm sure you will have no trouble.

I'm not ganging! Mike is a role model, and I just want him to properly venerate and celebrate his truly nutty-wonderful numbers in addition to all those so-called "soft factors" that allegedly "make him who he is."

Cross-admits will often prefer Harvard and Yale over Stanford simply because they're east-coast schools, and the entire legal business is biased towards the east coast. This is nothing new, and a quick look at LSN numbers also confirm that cross-admits more often than not chose HY over S. That doesn't take anything away from Stanford in terms of quality, it's an amazing law school, but studying on the east coast does have some benefits, such as easier access to a majority of future employers etc.

Cross-admits will often prefer Harvard and Yale over Stanford simply because they're east-coast schools, and the entire legal business is biased towards the east coast. This is nothing new, and a quick look at LSN numbers also confirm that cross-admits more often than not chose HY over S. That doesn't take anything away from Stanford in terms of quality, it's an amazing law school, but studying on the east coast does have some benefits, such as easier access to a majority of future employers etc.

I can see how this is true, especially with regards to Yale trumping Stanford for cross-admits. I agree that the legal profession has an East Coast bias, and most law students (especially the ones who post on LSD) make that a big factor in their law school decision. However, I disagree with the previous poster that this is necessarily an issue of yield protection.

Stanford has an extremely small class and, like the University of Chicago or any other small school, could easily be in danger of over-enrolling. The class size has been pretty stable at about 170-175, but I assume this is because of the school's use of the waitlist. At Yale, which has a much higher yield and a smaller waitlist, class size has fluctuated from 180-200--a fluctuation that, for most schools, would put a strain on resources.

BTW, Thanks, goalie! I have actually heard from someone in one top law school's administration that Stanford does lose the battle with Yale (only a handful of cross-admits go to Stanford) but with Harvard, it's not as clear cut.

Mike, It is telling, but it is not about soft factors. What that is really about is yield protection (yes, even at Stanford). Stanford does not take many people from Yale and Harvard (probably do more for California and West Coast students). Every year, a substantial amount of their class is taken from the waitlist. Waitlisting these people keeps their yield down so they only accept people that might actually take them over Harvard or Yale. Again, its a numbers game and having a low acceptance rate helps as far as rankings.

Hmmm...I don't know about that. At the Stanford ASW, I counted at least as many students from Harvard and Yale (each) as from Stanford--probably in the range of about 30 or so from the two schools alone. Harvard, Yale, Penn, Princeton, Columbia, MIT and U Chicago are all huge feeders into Stanford's acceptance pool. Moreover, a lot of them get accepted and still go elsewhere, so I don't think it's necessarily yield protection.

He was talking about cross admits, not undergrad schools. I don't think it's inaccurate to suggest that Stanford gets rejected in favor of H and Y very frequently. (1) Despite top 3, the reputation is just not the same; and (2) the mobility of a t3 degree means even if you want to end up in Palo Alto after you graduate, you can still easily get there from Harvard or Yale. Like someone else mentioned, (3)outside of California people, I don't think there are many who choose Stanford.

It was these points, not the idea that more cross-admits go to Yale and Harvard (I don't really care if they do). (1) The academic reputation scores for YHS this year were 4.9, 4.8, 4.7, respectively, while the lawyer/judge reputation scores were 4.8, 4.8, 4.8. This hardly seems like a significant difference in reputation between those three schools, and while I can't find the reputation scores for last year, I remember that Stanford was number 2, which makes me think that the difference must have been similarly microscopic in the past. I don't think that winning or losing the cross-admit battle proves that "the reputation is just not the same." What is your basis for saying that? Beyond your belief that it's true? Or some highly scientific LSN evidence that they lose the cross-admit battle? Considering how different the three schools are, it's hard to argue that the decisions of 0Ls choosing between the three schools proves anything about the difference in their reputations.

(2) No sh*t. Saying that you can still work in Palo Alto with a Harvard or Yale degree is like saying you can still go work in New Haven with a Harvard or Stanford degree, so people won't necessarily choose Yale if they want to end up in New Haven. Probably true that H and S are portable to that degree, but that's not why people choose those schools over Yale when they do. And how many people actually go to any of those three schools hoping to specifically hoping to end up in Palo Alto, or New Haven? It's absurd to use the example of people who want to end up in Palo Alto (not the West Coast, not California, not the Bay Area, but Palo Alto itself?), and implying that they would choose Harvard or Yale over Stanford, because they know those degrees can still carry them to Palo Alto. Again, not disputing that Harvard and Yale are portable to the West Coast, I just think it's bizarrely specific to assert with such confidence that this is a reason that cross-admits will not choose Stanford.

(3) Again, hey, maybe this is true. I just don't think you have much evidence to support it except that it kind of makes sense to you, and you're trying to hammer home your previous assumptions. Unless all the cross-admits on LSN list their geographical locations.

Your conclusion may well be correct (and I have no idea why you came back to me with some argument about yield protection, which is not what you were talking about when I jumped in). These three points just seem silly and baseless. And everyone is ganging up on mike245 for no good reason, and I won't have that!

ETA: It simply seems to me that your argument is:

1. Assert that Stanford loses the cross-admit battle on LSN.2. Make up a bunch of cockamie reasons why this is so.3. Assert that these things are true because Stanford loses the cross-admit battle on LSN.

It was obviously an extreme example used to make a point. That's why I said "even if you want to end up in Palo Alto". One would think there are more Stanford grads per capita in Palo Alto than any other city, but that might be wrong. Either way, I think the point was made and you just missed it.